Jackson Jambalaya

Tell DonnerKay the truckload of eggs from Cal-Maine is ready for delivery.

Back to 9th Grade Civics. However complicated the law, it makes sense to me that if the Governor is granted the power of life and death, an awesome power, then the Governor should not be second-guessed over a publication requirement.

time for us prosecutors who convicted these criminals to lock and load!

I like that, 2:56. Sounds tough, means nothing.

What I'm curious about now is, how to amend Section 124.

I may have to have a contest for best draft (1st prize: a free subscription to my blog?).

So, does anyont think the outcome was decided based on the AG's pitiful performance arguing before the SC? Would it have been different if a competent argument had been presented?

4:00, I tend to doubt it. Randolph has a long dissent making the arguments Hood should've made - Pierce has some good points too - and apparently they weren't enough to sway the majority.

Hood certainly didn't *help* his case one bit, that I could see.

So, does anyone think the outcome was decided based on the AG's pitiful performance arguing before the SC?

Yes

Was Waller worrying about re-election or running for other offices?

Jess got it right. He's a smart guy and a straight shooter

Jess is as good a judge you can get that raised a son to be a drug dealer.

So we should blame your parents for your being a jerk, 4:48?

I hesitate to lay the blame at any feet other than your own.

This will be a great hammer when re-election rolls around.

Giving any Governor the power of Kings is something ignored until now but will stick in the craw of many.

Add to that that many of those freed are likely to re-offend.

Brave decision but a losing one.

My personal experience is that Justice Jess Dickinson is a dishonest and dishonorable judge, which I can prove.

After reading the post,I can find no fault with the court's reasoning. I question the wisdom of releasing(pardoning) some of the individuals working for the gov.yet I must believe the gov. had his reasons. The court indicates that Hood could not offer any reason for opposition other than politics.

I'm sure I'm alone in this, but can't overlook Edwin Pittman getting his mush-mouth-mug on the nightly news disagreeing with the opinion. As far as I'm concerned Mississippi has never had a less effective AG and I doubt he did jack shit as a Supreme either. Irrelevance personified.

I agree with your characterization of Pittman 626pm but some legal scholars with more credibility are weighing in nationally. Also, Barbour's release about redemption and second chances was fine for a preacher but is comedic fodder.

Most of the country is sympathetic to the families of the victims, not to the " redeemed" who can now carry a concealed weapon among other things.

"I'm sure I'm alone in this, but can't overlook Edwin Pittman getting his mush-mouth-mug on the nightly news disagreeing with the opinion."

Definitely not alone. Tadpole has been useless ever since Chuck McRae was chasing him around the Supreme Court chambers giving him wedgies and making him cry.

KF, any chance you can find a mug shot of the rapist so your female readers can have a shot at recognizing him before he goes to buy his " hunting rifle"?

Just in case this isn't the first rapist ever to change his ways...

Good one Curt.

Kingfish,
I love your blog, love your opinion on most issues, and agree with you, more times than not. But, you are awful quiet on this decision. I hope its not a political crisis that makes you silent. And by that, I mean you seem to be awful conservative and republican on most issues.
HERE, we have a issue we expect dems to support and repubs to curse. Yet in the end it was the most conservative MS governor i can remember, that created the mess, and a liberal democrat AG to oppose it. In the end, it was a higly conservative Supreme court (some say one of the most conservative that we have ever had), that upheld it.

It seems a conflict of political positions and beliefs, has occurred! your silence, seems to say, you too are confused.

@5:22, The case before the supremes wasn't about 'giving the governor the power of kings'. The supreme court neither grants nor has the ability to remove that authority. Nor is it about your suggestion of recidivism. Did you manage to miss the entire point of the hearing?

"some say one of the most conservative that we have ever had"

Some say that? Who some?

A court that replaces Smith with Kitchens is not "the most conservative," even disregarding earlier generations.

It seems a conflict of political positions and beliefs, has occurred! your silence, seems to say, you too are confused.

Your comment seems to say you don't know what you are talking about.

This court is not conservative with respect to criminal law. There have been many questionable reversals of convictions by the current assembly of judges. Close calls are going the way of criminals.

Anderson, look into what Dickinson did with Supreme Court letterhead when his son was up for sentencing in Oktibehha County and then post a strong recommendation for his integrity.

just how many times must toemmie green be overturned before she is fired for just being a plain dumbass?

Anderson, you took one sentence out of 10:pm's post to quibble with and missed the main point.

Whether it's the " most" conservative court historically or not is unimportant.

It is a conservative court in a conservative state and this is a conservative blog.

Haley's action and the court's ruling isn't conservative.

Conservatives are strict constructionists and the wording of MS's Constitution specifically requires notice in the section regarding pardons.

More stunning, though, is the liberal defense of those released that makes even bleeding hearts blush. Conservatives have a hard time buying jail house redemption and not all those pardoned were " out" and many of those " out" were still under supervision.

Conservatives are more concerned with law and order and the victims than with those who have ( and in many of these pardons, egregiously) violated the law getting " second chances".

When it comes to reducing government spending, cutting defense and prison costs aren't high on conservative lists.

This is the GOP defending one of its own. This is the lower levels of GOP being afraid of Haley's clout and ability to hurt them within the party.

And, the hypocrisy in defending Barbour is going to hurt the GOP with those who are not partisan but rather conservative and certainly with the Independents who get ignored (to the detriment of both parties) until it's too late.

Barbour, like Rush, thought himself " bullet proof". When you are surrounded only by " true believers" who stroke your ego and are "johnny one notes" , the money and power and isolation warps your sense of reality and you forget that internal party politics is not the " real world" but rather insular. Most people don't give a rat's ass about things partisans get all riled up about, particularly the personality conflicts and cliques.

The radicals and egotists have taken over the party and are destroying it. And, the proof is that though the Personhood admenment failed every time it was put to a popular vote ( as opposed to elected GOP majorities) and caused near riots in VA and is the subject of Facebook and Tweets, STILL the GOP is siding with its proponents and now siding with Catholic heirarchy on an issue that 98% of Catholic women in the US had already rebelled against.

It should be a no brainer that women will not give up their birth control pills and IUDs without a fight. It should be a no brainer that too many families in the US have children and grandchildren because of in vitro and they will not side with those threatening that option.

You can't have those arguing for " less government" getting into such a personal part of so many American lives.

It's not conservative to get "that much up into someone's personal business" anyway, it's stupid.

And, that's what these pardons have done too. They've " gotten up in" the personal tragedies of a lot of families, all of whom have friends and families.The pardoned have families too, but most are going to see them as blinded by love and family devotion and a hope for change or in denial when it comes to their law breaking family member.

And, if you've missed how cleverly the Democrats have been responding to all of this GOP implosion, you really have on partisan blinders.

I do have an opinion but its an uninformed one as I have not read the case law cited by both sides.

Anderson, you took one sentence out of 10:pm's post to quibble with and missed the main point.

Yep. I'm a quibbler.

As for missing what the Dems have done, well, you can be forgiven for not keeping up with everything I write on the internet, but that is hardly the case.

But your lengthy comment doesn't seem to explain whom you're calling "conservative" or "GOP." Are you saying this is a GOP Court? Really? Are Kitchens, Chandler, and King Republicans? Link please.

Randolph and Pierce are, on my impression, the two justices least likely to reverse criminal convictions. I think that had much more to do with their votes.

Waller, I dunno - couldn't get a read on him at argument.

Conservative jurisprudence isn't just about "strict construction." It's also about respecting separation of powers and not arrogating powers to the judiciary.

Dickinson's opinion for the Court was very conservative in that sense, as well as in the sense of respecting and applying precedents.

I was waiting to read comments here on the court's ruling. To the person who wrote the post addressing "Anderson", thank you for such a great post with which I agree. I could not have stated it as well nor as concisely.

After watching the live feed of the hearing I had zero respect for most of the Justices. One rabidly attacked Hood as soon as he walked up to the podium, which was disgusting.

One of my questions would be if everyone dislikes Hood so much how was he elected again twice? I didn't vote for him and don't really like him, myself. But, I DID like and respect the fact that he had the courage to go against the Barbour machine to attempt to correct what, in his pompous arrogance, Haley had the unmitigated gall to do in releasing murderers, rapists and criminals who were rightfully convicted and sentenced. I consider that it displayed great courage for Hood to attempt to protect the public and the victims and their families from these dangerous criminals. In my humble opinion there is NO excuse for what Barbour did, and what I feel for this heinous act on his part is that it was beyond contempt.

Personally, it seems to me that this unconscionable action on the part of Barbour should have been rejected by the Supreme court, so although it is just my opinion, I consider the possibility that some who voted FOR this release of murderers were in Barbour's pocket.

My opinion about Ed Pittman is that I never knew anyone who had any respect for him when he was in the Legislature, saw a lot of contempt for him, and I was totally astonished when he became a Supreme Court Justice. However, if he disagreed with the decision which supports the release of murderers into the populace I have to agree with him on that.

After witnessing this fiasco, I consider that we only have three intelligent, ethical and admirable Justices. I agree with what Supreme Court Justice Mike Randolph wrote in his dissent, when he said 'Today's decision is a stunning victory for some lawless convicted felons, and an immeasurable loss for the law-abiding citizens of our State.'"

If I remember right, Pittman wasn't to pleased when Mabus busted Rankin County. If I had to make an opinion right now, without reading precedents and case law, I would have voted in the minority. Now having said that, I disagree with Hood on this so called collective right of the people on the notice requirement and disagree with Green as well.

As for the hearing itself, Hood was pitiful. Was clearly in over his head and didn't do his homework. Got nailed at the end. He could've let the attorney argue the case that went before Green but noooo. he is Jim friggin Hood and HE has to be in front of the cameras. I was there and he was an embarrassment.

"One rabidly attacked Hood as soon as he walked up to the podium, which was disgusting."

Hey, I thought the podium looked nice, myself.

... 9:53 watched some argument other than the one I attended. My notes have Hood setting forth his issues, then Justice King asking him whether the 10 pardons in question were facially invalid - and Hood responding, that's not the issue.

For those ignorant of how oral argument works, which evidently includes 9:53, you DO NOT tell a judge that his question is irrelevant and thus not in need of an answer. You answer the question, and then you explain what you think is the main issue.

Hood blew his first question from the Court, and it didn't get much better for him.

"It should be a no brainer that women will not give up their birth control pills and IUDs without a fight."

Stop lying - name one major GOP candidate that proposes to outlaw birth control pills.

Imposing a belief on a religion that explicitly rejects it, and forcing that religios body to act in a way diametrically opposed to its own belief system, now THAT is a blatant violation of the First Amendment (you know - the other part - the part about government NOT suppressing a religion).

Obama has succeeded wildly in taking people's eyes off his gross mismanagement of jsut about everything, and inventing a phantom issue that the LSM can whip up into a hysteria, aided and abetted by liars.

Oh PUHLEEZE Anderson...
I said " conservative court" not GOP and please spend more time reading Scalia and court decisions on the separation of powers.

And, we aren't talking about all the Democrats' bad acts. You are attempting to deflect.

I would suggest to you " we're bad but they are worse" is not a great strategy nor is using the wrongs of others to justify your own.

It is not in the GOPs long term interest to act as arrogantly and with as much sleaze as the Democrats did when they had a hold on Mississippi!

If you aren't simply a GOP apologist who is defending Haley, you are doing a great impression of one.

And, the really bad news is that the public may be not quite as dumb as the current strategy needs for them to be. I keep hoping that there are wiser heads in the GOP and they are just having a hard time controlling the loose cannons who imagine themselves helpful. But, it's looking like the loose cannons are running things.

Okay, 10:39 - I've been talking about the pardons decision, and I've lost all track of what *you* are talking about.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are unable to imagine that a court could decide an issue on the legal merits and not for some wicked political motive.

Or that a Democrat could find that those merits happen to favor the sleazebag governor who issued the pardons (contrary to the terms of the constitution).

Litigation is not a fairy tale. Good guys lose, bad guys win. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.

This was a constitutional question that correctly went before the Supremes. I agree with the majority opinion. Dickinson wrote a very good opinion, did an excellent job. No hoopla, no grandstanding, no shouting, just the law.

“We hold that a facially valid pardon, issued by the governor – in whom our Constitution vests the chief-executive power of this state, and who is the head of the coequal executive branch of government–may not be set aside or voided by the judicial branch, based solely on a claim that the procedural publication requirement of Section 124 was not met, or that the publication was insufficient. Our decision is in accord with the separation of powers doctrine set forth by the United States Supreme Court”

Carlson’s concurring opinion is a doozy.

Anything 'jumped on' other than a constitutional question of law, in my opinion, was a political sideshow.

Those that are complaining that the Supreme Court did not act in a conservative manner are wholly ignorant of true conservatism.

It is a fundamental tenet of conservatism that one branch of government does not interfere with matters entrusted exclusively to another branch.

And that is exactly what the Court held.

Anderson, do you READ the posts you are attacking and REMEMBER YOUR responses?

YOU brought up the Democrats as a part of your response at 8:25am to my post.

What you can't seem to grasp and the point I was making as was another blogger is that some REPUBLICANS are not happy with the Governor's pardons or with this decision! Some
CONSERVATIVES don't view this as a CONSERVATIVE position .

And SOME GOP CONSERVATIVES are hating watching , to put it kindly, misguided loyalists and politicians who've gotten too big for their britches lose the Presidential election for us !

Anon, wipe the spittle off your monitor and maybe then you can see I was responding to your own Dems comment at 7:42.

Not sure what all your ranting is about, but I doubt the pardons bit hurt the state GOP, which ran away from Barbour on this. He's the only political victim here.

The Dems milked it for all they could, but it's over now. Time to rebuild and wait for the GOP to choke on its own success.

"Some CONSERVATIVES don't view this as a CONSERVATIVE position."

Any conservative who thinks the Court's decision was not a "conservative position" should stop pretending to be a conservative.

Anyone who has principles is going to find, sooner or later, that his values run contrary to something he wants or wishes would happen.

If you haven't had that experience, then you don't have principles - only appetites.

I noticed the nasty remark about the podium. As for me, I'm no literary genius, nor am I a journalist, but I am certainly proud of the fact that I am not mean spirited.

...but I am certainly proud of the fact that I am not mean spirited.

Enjoy your anonymous pride and pat yourself on your anonymous back.

LYING????? Do you not well informed enough to know that most COMMON forms of birth control do NOT prevent conception????
They prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus!!!!!!

IGNORANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anderson...really...reading comprehension is not your strength

What is your " evidence" that the GOP ran away from Barbour on this? YOU certainly didn't!

Curt, please tell me you aren't an attorney. PLEASE. Law Review? What law school? Was it accredited?

1:05pm how many candidates have you advised that got elected? You are NOT a campaign strategist, you are a " true believer" and the strategists make fun of the " true believers".

GEEZ PETE, BILL...they are KILLING US! A monster was created!

WAKE UP people. We NEED a strong 2 party system and the GOP is going down the toilet. BushII followed by THIS nonsense??!!!???

The blue collar class is not THAT dumb.

4:51-"Curt, please tell me you aren't an attorney. PLEASE. Law Review? What law school? Was it accredited?"

Hey dumbass, my comment was a political one, not a legal one.

Nice drive-by. You fired at 3 people and hit air. Since you're so worried about whether I'm a lawyer or 1:05 is a strategist, why don't you tell us your line of work? What is your education?

Are you one of the idiots running around yelling about being conservative, while having no clue what it means to be a conservative?

It is that Natchez based troll again that Ladd features for legal commentary.

Anonymous said...
...but I am certainly proud of the fact that I am not mean spirited.
--------------------------

Enjoy your anonymous pride and pat yourself on your anonymous back.

March 9, 2012 3:41 PM

------------------------
Like you do, Anonymous? And, what's it to you, anyway, other than just being rude?

Curt, one would infer from your post at 1:05 pm that you know what a conservative legal opinion would be.

The greatest legal opinions, be they liberal or conservative, have clarity,consistency and a philosophical and historical frame of reference. Legal scholars know what the words " conservative"and " liberal" actually mean.

You are either not old enough or are so old as to be forgetful perhaps or you'd remember that the politically " conservative" position on abortion in the 50s isn't what it is today. So which position is philosophically and legally and historically consistent with conservatism, Curt?

Whizzer White was a dissenter in Roe v Wade. He was a Kennedy appointee. Blackmun was a Nixon appointee and was a consenter.

Have you ever read Roe v Wade and the Texas law it overturned?

There is great clarity from Blackmun and White so that one might just start to understand that the role of the state, not when life begins, is a key part of the decision.

And, if you read anything about either of those first rate legal minds, you'd suspect they are turning in their grave that a State Supreme Court didn't find the judiciary branch of government had the power to enforce the language of the State Constitution.

Everyone seems very caught up in State's Rights and seems to forget there is The Bill of Rights.

A State cannot use its Constitutional powers to deny individual rights to its citizens.